They do if they use existing road space to create these cycle paths/lanes.

Your photo clearly shows that it is vehicles, not pedestrians or cyclists, that are causing the congestion.

What, after all, are you suggesting? Should we dig up every footpath and cycle lane in the country to try to squeeze more vehicles into our roads turning them all into “vehicle-ways” which exclude all other modes of transport?

Or, perhaps, follow the path of LA, which demolished neighbourhoods to make way for motorways only to realise that policy is a failure as they ended up a near dawn to dusk “rush hour”?

What, after all, are you suggesting? Should we dig up every footpath and cycle lane in the country to try to squeeze more vehicles into our roads turning them all into “vehicle-ways” which exclude all other modes of transport?

I'm suggesting we shouldn't be handing over more road space for Zil lanes for cyclists. If in our tightly built cities there isn't room for dedicated cycle lanes/paths then if they are going to cycle they are going to have to share the road.

Sajid Javid said on Nick Ferrari LBC breakfast show. He loves buses, his family worked on them. Obviously can’t travel on them now, cause of his security status. He also likes Cycling, Bridges and Trains.

What, after all, are you suggesting? Should we dig up every footpath and cycle lane in the country to try to squeeze more vehicles into our roads turning them all into “vehicle-ways” which exclude all other modes of transport?

I'm suggesting we shouldn't be handing over more road space for Zil lanes for cyclists. If in our tightly built cities there isn't room for dedicated cycle lanes/paths then if they are going to cycle they are going to have to share the road.

We have tried shared space for decades. It is a failed strategy and results in huge numbers of deaths. It also directly results in increased congestion as people switch to cars to avoid the risk of being hit while cycling in the shared spaces.

I also note that you are inconsistent in your position, since why do you exclude pedestrians from your shared space roads? If it “safe” to share space for cyclists then it is “safe” for pedestrians to walk along amongst vehicles on busy roads. Yet oddly you aren’t advocating that....

Note, there is no cycle lane in the picture, yet we still have congestion from vehicles. Or are you going to blamie the congestion in the picture on the footpaths not being given over as a road lane?

Yet I guess you'd be quite happy to hand over one of those lanes to cyclists and make congestion even worse. You can't get away from the fact that if 're-allocate'road space to cyclists you are going to increase congestion.

We have tried shared space for decades. It is a failed strategy and results in huge numbers of deaths. It also directly results in increased congestion as people switch to cars to avoid the risk of being hit while cycling in the shared spaces.

Huge number of deaths? A very similar KSI rate to the oft quoted cycling nirvana that is the Netherlands.

I also note that you are inconsistent in your position, since why do you exclude pedestrians from your shared space roads? If it “safe” to share space for cyclists then it is “safe” for pedestrians to walk along amongst vehicles on busy roads. Yet oddly you aren’t advocating that....

Now you are being silly. Pedestrians don't belong on the road, I'd say the same in many cases for cyclists but it seems many want to be treated as equals on the road (with all the rights and very few of the responsibilities I might add), so where it is not practical to provide cycle lanes/paths then they are going to have to share the roads.

I was in Oxford recently and was impressed by the bus services they have there (far better than their rival city of Cambridge), especially the shared minibus services where you can summon a bus anywhere within the city and then they will work out an optimal route for all passengers. - kind of an Uber for buses. Such a system is ideal for routes which don't have enough passengers for a regular dedicated service.

I don't understand Johnson said they will buy 4,000 new buses but who will get and run these new buses? Local councils haven't got the money to run the ones they have now so does that mean these buses bought with public money will go to private companies like First and Virgin?

I don't understand Johnson said they will buy 4,000 new buses but who will get and run these new buses? Local councils haven't got the money to run the ones they have now so does that mean these buses bought with public money will go to private companies like First and Virgin?

Maybe the franchise model used for buses in London where they are owned and run by private operators but with fares, routes, timetables and branding set by local government. Get on a bus in London and you wouldn't know who was running it.